Fencer
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2006
- Messages
- 14,293
- Reaction score
- 3,986
I have NOT yet seen a link to the actual briefs, but I hope one will show up soon in this thread.
McCann, however, has seen and commented on them, in http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/07/nf...suspension-deflategate-patriots-roger-goodell . He characterizes them as, unsurprisingly, covering little new ground, instead mainly amplifying what was said before. However, he makes three points:
1. (I think this is covered in another thread too, but so be it.) The league in essence concedes that the Wells report was not independent, but claims it didn't have to be. McCann says that under ordinary circumstances the claim would have been correct, but since they told Brady and the world the report WOULD be independent, they may be legally obligated to live up to that now. (Presumably, McCann is saying that Brady was entitled to know what the process as under which he was investigated and disciplined.)
2. McCann thinks that Brady now has a clear case for defamation.
I think the third sentence of that quote is a bit confused. I'd say instead:
3. The NFL claims that its other losses are irrelevant, because they were about different kinds of player offenses. The NFLPA claims that it's all related, because it's all about procedural violations.
Frankly, I think the main difference is that in domestic violence cases the league changed its policies, while in Brady's case it made up a policy for the first time out of whole cloth. I don't see how the latter could be a better look for them than the former.
McCann, however, has seen and commented on them, in http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/07/nf...suspension-deflategate-patriots-roger-goodell . He characterizes them as, unsurprisingly, covering little new ground, instead mainly amplifying what was said before. However, he makes three points:
1. (I think this is covered in another thread too, but so be it.) The league in essence concedes that the Wells report was not independent, but claims it didn't have to be. McCann says that under ordinary circumstances the claim would have been correct, but since they told Brady and the world the report WOULD be independent, they may be legally obligated to live up to that now. (Presumably, McCann is saying that Brady was entitled to know what the process as under which he was investigated and disciplined.)
2. McCann thinks that Brady now has a clear case for defamation.
If Goodell’s accusation against Brady about an apparent bribe is untrue, it would be well within Brady’s rights to file a defamation lawsuit against the NFL. Even though Brady, as a public figure, would need to prove “actual malice” (this means proof the NFL intentionally or knowingly lied), Brady could cite as possible evidence Goodell seemingly misconstruing Brady’s description of conversations with Jastresmki. Brady’s testimony indicated that he had a wide-ranging conversation with Jastremski, rather than, as Goodell portrayed in his order upholding Brady’s suspension, a far more limited (and suspicious) conversation about game ball preparation.
I think the third sentence of that quote is a bit confused. I'd say instead:
- Goodell lied about the contents of Brady's testimony relating to the Jastremski conversations.
- The lie was a big deal, central to both his case for the original suspension and for it being upheld.
- His lie about Brady's testimony at the appeal was cleared up in public about a month later, with the release of the transcripts, but damage had been done.
3. The NFL claims that its other losses are irrelevant, because they were about different kinds of player offenses. The NFLPA claims that it's all related, because it's all about procedural violations.
Frankly, I think the main difference is that in domestic violence cases the league changed its policies, while in Brady's case it made up a policy for the first time out of whole cloth. I don't see how the latter could be a better look for them than the former.